Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Best Korea and Dear Leader's Howitzers

Posts

The proper way, in my opinion, is go extreme in one direction or another. You can ramp up the belligerence, and give a credible threat that you might really invade. Cut off all of foreign aid, and get China to play ball on that too. Make the people really afraid to support their leader, because they're afraid of being invaded.

Or, alternatively, go the other direction and play nice. Give them a lot of foreign aid, everything they need. Give them the territory they disputed. Move us forces out of south korea. Make the people there see that the US is not a threat to them, and that they don't need their leader to protect them.

The way things are now, we're giving the north Korean leadership exactly what they want- a cold war, full of fear for the people but with no actual risk.

Those both sound ripe for propaganda. Off the top of my head:

Dear Leader protects you from the American hordes. They're violent, see?

The proper way, in my opinion, is go extreme in one direction or another. You can ramp up the belligerence, and give a credible threat that you might really invade. Cut off all of foreign aid, and get China to play ball on that too. Make the people really afraid to support their leader, because they're afraid of being invaded.

Or, alternatively, go the other direction and play nice. Give them a lot of foreign aid, everything they need. Give them the territory they disputed. Move us forces out of south korea. Make the people there see that the US is not a threat to them, and that they don't need their leader to protect them.

The way things are now, we're giving the north Korean leadership exactly what they want- a cold war, full of fear for the people but with no actual risk.

Those both sound ripe for propaganda. Off the top of my head:

Dear Leader protects you from the American hordes. They're violent, see?

Well they get that propaganda already, the way things are. The president says something tough, KJI says something tough back, and then nothing happens, so KJI gets to pretend that he protected his people and forced us to back down. We have a scary threat to the country, so the people want protection, but we're not actually going to use it, so he can pretend to be effective. We need to either remove the threat, or show the people that their leadership can't actually protect them against a serious force.

Well they get that propaganda already, the way things are. The president says something tough, KJI says something tough back, and then nothing happens, so KJI gets to pretend that he protected his people and forced us to back down. We have a scary threat to the country, so the people want protection, but we're not actually going to use it, so he can pretend to be effective. We need to either remove the threat, or show the people that their leadership can't actually protect them against a serious force.

True, but all America would be doing is providing fodder. I mean real fodder, as opposed to the fairyland crap NK is selling now.

Then again, if there is a war via the aggressive suggestion, I don't think propaganda would really matter anymore.

Well they get that propaganda already, the way things are. The president says something tough, KJI says something tough back, and then nothing happens, so KJI gets to pretend that he protected his people and forced us to back down. We have a scary threat to the country, so the people want protection, but we're not actually going to use it, so he can pretend to be effective. We need to either remove the threat, or show the people that their leadership can't actually protect them against a serious force.

True, but all America would be doing is providing fodder. I mean real fodder, as opposed to the fairyland crap NK is selling now.

Then again, if there is a war via the aggressive suggestion, I don't think propaganda would really matter anymore.

Bear in mind that NK isn't exactly 1984. They still have some idea about the news, from what comes in from SK. It seems like most people there are already harbouring resentment of their leadership, and they really don't like Kim Jeong Eun (the incoming leader). If we could embarass him~ either by showing just how helpless they are against our air strikes, or by showing the people just how much richer we are and that we have no ill will against them- it might push them over the edge, to where they no longer support the government.

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said Monday that South Korea would consider the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in consultation with Washington as one of the options to deal with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

His comment followed a report that the North showed a new uranium enrichment plant purportedly with some 2,000 centrifuges installed and running to Siegfried Hecker, a U.S. scientist who visited the communist state earlier this month.

“We will review (the redeployment) when (Korea and the U.S.) meet to consult on the matter at a committee for nuclear deterrence,” Kim said during a parliamentary committee session.

He was referring to the Extended Deterrence Policy Committee that is to serve as a cooperation channel between the two allies to improve the effectiveness of the extended deterrence, which means enhanced U.S. nuclear commitment for its ally.

At the 42nd Security Consultative Meeting in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 8, Defense Minister Kim and his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates agreed to establish the special committee.

“We will closely discuss that after organizing the committee. We will conscientiously prepare ourselves regarding this matter with both having serious concerns,” said Kim.

“The Seoul government is closely cooperating with the U.S. in terms of intelligence sharing. So, (the revelation of the new uranium enrichment facility) did not come as a sudden surprise to us.”

Later in the day, the Ministry of National Defense said in a press release that the government has never considered the redeployment, and that there has not been any concrete consultation yet over the matter between the two countries.

With the North abruptly conducting nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, citizens here have voiced concerns over how to deal with the North’s asymmetric weapons. Some scholars have called for the redeployment of U.S. tactical weapons as a counterbalance against the North’s nuclear arsenal.

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced in September 1991 that the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons would be withdrawn from the peninsula as well as other overseas installations.

The redeployment does not appear to be easy as it runs counter to the current Obama administration’s vision of a “nuclear-free world.”

It was the first time for the U.S. to agree on founding the standing cooperative committee concerning the extended deterrence with its ally except for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Not being a very strong believer in nuclear non-proliferation, I'm sort of ambivalent on this. Not sure if it's really required because the U.S. can nuke Pyongyang right off it's own territory too.

Well they get that propaganda already, the way things are. The president says something tough, KJI says something tough back, and then nothing happens, so KJI gets to pretend that he protected his people and forced us to back down. We have a scary threat to the country, so the people want protection, but we're not actually going to use it, so he can pretend to be effective. We need to either remove the threat, or show the people that their leadership can't actually protect them against a serious force.

True, but all America would be doing is providing fodder. I mean real fodder, as opposed to the fairyland crap NK is selling now.

Then again, if there is a war via the aggressive suggestion, I don't think propaganda would really matter anymore.

Bear in mind that NK isn't exactly 1984. They still have some idea about the news, from what comes in from SK. It seems like most people there are already harbouring resentment of their leadership, and they really don't like Kim Jeong Eun (the incoming leader). If we could embarass him~ either by showing just how helpless they are against our air strikes, or by showing the people just how much richer we are and that we have no ill will against them- it might push them over the edge, to where they no longer support the government.

Attacking NK like that would just reinforce what they think about other countries, I can't see it doing any good.

0·

AtomikaLive long and prosper!Unless you're evil, in which case do neitherRegistered Userregular

But yeah, something is going to have to happen in NK soon. The country can't just be ignored forever.

Actually, I think it can, with the exception of continued sanctions. As long as we can persuade China and Russia to ignore them and not give them aid, North Korea can only act out with these random unprovoked (and mostly harmless) attacks.

The biggest thing anyone could do to legitimize the North Korean threat is to attack them without intention to destroy them. Much like the various jihadist conflicts in the Middle East, there is no such thing as defeat with the North Koreans unless the defeat is total and utter; simply withstanding a Western assault, regardless of how many lives on their side were lost and how many resources were depleted, is a victory against the Great Satan and its puppets.

Defense Minister Kim Tae-young said Monday that South Korea would consider the redeployment of U.S. tactical nuclear weapons in consultation with Washington as one of the options to deal with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

His comment followed a report that the North showed a new uranium enrichment plant purportedly with some 2,000 centrifuges installed and running to Siegfried Hecker, a U.S. scientist who visited the communist state earlier this month.

“We will review (the redeployment) when (Korea and the U.S.) meet to consult on the matter at a committee for nuclear deterrence,” Kim said during a parliamentary committee session.

He was referring to the Extended Deterrence Policy Committee that is to serve as a cooperation channel between the two allies to improve the effectiveness of the extended deterrence, which means enhanced U.S. nuclear commitment for its ally.

At the 42nd Security Consultative Meeting in Washington, D.C. on Oct. 8, Defense Minister Kim and his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates agreed to establish the special committee.

“We will closely discuss that after organizing the committee. We will conscientiously prepare ourselves regarding this matter with both having serious concerns,” said Kim.

“The Seoul government is closely cooperating with the U.S. in terms of intelligence sharing. So, (the revelation of the new uranium enrichment facility) did not come as a sudden surprise to us.”

Later in the day, the Ministry of National Defense said in a press release that the government has never considered the redeployment, and that there has not been any concrete consultation yet over the matter between the two countries.

With the North abruptly conducting nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009, citizens here have voiced concerns over how to deal with the North’s asymmetric weapons. Some scholars have called for the redeployment of U.S. tactical weapons as a counterbalance against the North’s nuclear arsenal.

Former U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced in September 1991 that the U.S. tactical nuclear weapons would be withdrawn from the peninsula as well as other overseas installations.

The redeployment does not appear to be easy as it runs counter to the current Obama administration’s vision of a “nuclear-free world.”

It was the first time for the U.S. to agree on founding the standing cooperative committee concerning the extended deterrence with its ally except for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Not being a very strong believer in nuclear non-proliferation, I'm sort of ambivalent on this. Not sure if it's really required because the U.S. can nuke Pyongyang right off it's own territory too.

But what happens when they get nuclear capabilities? Like actually being able to attack someone with nuclear weapons, not that they would but an unstable country like that getting nukes is the example of why no one should have nukes.

But what happens when they get nuclear capabilities? Like actually being able to attack someone with nuclear weapons, not that they would but an unstable country like that getting nukes is the example of why no one should have nukes.

Don't know.

Not much that you can do from stopping them from having nuclear weapons except attack them (which isn't worth the very unlikely threat of North Korea or any other country ever nuking anyone, in my opinion).

But what happens when they get nuclear capabilities? Like actually being able to attack someone with nuclear weapons, not that they would but an unstable country like that getting nukes is the example of why no one should have nukes.

Don't know.

Not much that you can do from stopping them from having nuclear weapons except attack them (which isn't worth the very unlikely threat of North Korea or any other country ever nuking anyone, in my opinion).

The best you can do is use sanctions and that doesn't seem to be such a strong deterrent against places like NK or Iran.

But what happens when they get nuclear capabilities? Like actually being able to attack someone with nuclear weapons, not that they would but an unstable country like that getting nukes is the example of why no one should have nukes.

Don't know.

Not much that you can do from stopping them from having nuclear weapons except attack them (which isn't worth the very unlikely threat of North Korea or any other country ever nuking anyone, in my opinion).

The best you can do is use sanctions and that doesn't seem to be such a strong deterrent against places like NK or Iran.

The nations involved will just have to decide whether they can tolerate allowing North Korea to remain independant. If that's what they're going to do, there's not really any way to prevent them from getting nuclear weapons. We'll just have to get along with them as best we can so they won't ever use them.

Death by powerpoint isn't really an accurate assessment of US military training unless you're talking the air force

USAF special forces have their own training, that isn't powerpoint. Oh and the pilots actually do this thing called flying.

Add EOD, Security Forces (MPs), Combat Controllers, PJs (Pararescue), and anyone who goes on convoy or TCN duty. Chair Force may have been true during the 80's up until the early 2000's, but today's Air Force is a different beast (especially with more stringent PT standards implemented, longer deployment times, and reduction of personnel numbers added with a culture of "do more with less"). I've often heard (jokingly) that the brass want us to change back to the Army Air Corps, which is what we'd be if we took on any more responsibility. Just sayin' that the USAF does pull its own weight along with the other branches (F-22 Raptor boondoggles, notwithstanding).

Getting back on topic, from what I gather/read, NK may have nuclear capabilities but its range and ability to actually send said nukes where they want precisely on target around the world via ICBMs are hampered by aging Cold War era technology. Not sure how true this is. Small comfort if it is, I suppose.

Honestly, North Korea is actually going to have more problems then most non-third world countries in getting an effective nuclear deterrent.

For example, Finland could probably acquire nukes faster and with more technological efficiency if it wanted and other countries wouldn't stop it. Or Switzerland or something. Israel already did it, and it's not technologically beyond really any Western country.

I'd like to know just how dangerous, really, is the North Korean artillery threat. I haven't been able to find any really good analysis of this. I know that most of their artillery doesn't have the range to hit Seoul, but there's still a lot of people living north of Seoul. Just how many people would die if the north started attacking indiscriminately with it's artillery?

I'd like to know just how dangerous, really, is the North Korean artillery threat. I haven't been able to find any really good analysis of this. I know that most of their artillery doesn't have the range to hit Seoul, but there's still a lot of people living north of Seoul. Just how many people would die if the north started attacking indiscriminately with it's artillery?

I'd like to know just how dangerous, really, is the North Korean artillery threat. I haven't been able to find any really good analysis of this. I know that most of their artillery doesn't have the range to hit Seoul, but there's still a lot of people living north of Seoul. Just how many people would die if the north started attacking indiscriminately with it's artillery?

I think about 2-5 million people fall under the range of those weapons. So...anywhere between 10,000 to 100,000?

I've seen that before. It doesn't really give an estimate of what the casualties would be though. zero to 5 million is a big range. I guess it would depend a lot on how fast the US and ROK airforces can destroy the artillery, which is probably classified information.

Death by powerpoint isn't really an accurate assessment of US military training unless you're talking the air force

USAF special forces have their own training, that isn't powerpoint. Oh and the pilots actually do this thing called flying.

Add EOD, Security Forces (MPs), Combat Controllers, PJs (Pararescue), and anyone who goes on convoy or TCN duty. Chair Force may have been true during the 80's up until the early 2000's, but today's Air Force is a different beast (especially with more stringent PT standards implemented, longer deployment times, and reduction of personnel numbers added with a culture of "do more with less"). I've often heard (jokingly) that the brass want us to change back to the Army Air Corps, which is what we'd be if we took on any more responsibility. Just sayin' that the USAF does pull its own weight along with the other branches (F-22 Raptor boondoggles, notwithstanding).

So we get stiff once in a while. So we have a little fun. What’s wrong with that? This is a free country, isn’t it? I can take my panda any place I want to. And if I wanna buy it a drink, that’s my business.

Well they get that propaganda already, the way things are. The president says something tough, KJI says something tough back, and then nothing happens, so KJI gets to pretend that he protected his people and forced us to back down.

Those bags of emergency food NK gets with names of other countries on them?

Yeah, the rest of the world pays those in tribute out of fear of NK. That's how the internal NK propaganda goes.

thats why a complete blockade/embargo provided china and russia are willing to cooperate would be the fastest way to end any conflict that comes up
the problem of course is that its likely many north koreans will die in the ensuing starvation/revolution
the upside is, kim jong il and his buddies will be out one way or another

It really only takes a couple hundred gallons of bleach and a pallet of Comet to make mustard gas

So yes, they do

Just to nitpick you'd make chlorine gas, not mustard gas.

I thought the two were interchangable terms.

At any rate both of them are blistering agents banned by international law.

Chlorine gas is by far one of the least effective chemical weapons though, if I actually know what I'm talking about. It can very well be lethal but requires prolonged or heavy exposure to actually kill. It's highly visible and has a strong smell. It wouldn't be extremely effective because modern armies are well equipped and drilled to defend themselves from chemical weapons. Using chemical weapons could actually pose a greater risk to North Korean soldiers than Allied if they do not have the same equipement.

It could be used against civilians but it would have to be delivered by artillery shells. I don't know how badly the explosive effect of the shell decreases the effectiveness of chlorine gas. However, you can make a simple gas mask out of a 2 litre pop bottle, a coffee filter and urine. I think that would keep you alive.

If NK really wanted to make the SKs piss their pants, they would announce that they have loaded up a hundred ballistic missiles with TCDD and intent on turning the South Korean farmland into a toxic wasteland

If NK really wanted to make the SKs piss their pants, they would announce that they have loaded up a hundred ballistic missiles with TCDD and intent on turning the South Korean farmland into a toxic wasteland

Check out the Seveso disaster yo

Wiki redirected to the Turkish railway and it made me think of traincars falling out of the sky over Seoul.